Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
They seem to have consumers trained to think Stainless Steel is as valuable as gold. I used to work at the place that brokered metals. Aluminum is maybe $$0.75 per pound and Stainless is about double that. But there would be nothing even close to a pound of metal in a phone, not even a 1/10 of a pound.. A tenth of a pound of stainless costs about 17 cents.

Yes I know machining the metal costs too, but that has to be done in either case.

The real difference is that people will pay more for a final product if made of stainless.
 
What's ironic is that if you've seen any leaks of next week's 10/4 launch of the new "Google branded" Pixel phones, according to all rumors, they're an exact copy of the standard iPhone front including huge bezels. (It's pretty funny considering these new Google phone's don't even contain a home button.) What do you know, competitors copying iPhone to drive sales... where have we heard that before? What's better is that Apple's "supposedly" planning on shifting away from the home button in the iPhone 8.

View attachment 661013 View attachment 661014

really do hope that's not what the Pixel will end up looking like.

But IIRC, rumour is that it's being made by HTC. Which, has a cross license deal with Apple, and we've already seen their blatant (but apparently licensed) copies with the A9 phone.
 
Oh so Apple is brining back the iPhone 4 design in 2017.

Was a gorgeous phone. SJ influence is so strong they have to go back almost a decade in design to stay good.
My guess is they're finally realizing the initial goal of some of the concepts they came up with when first designing the iPhone, specifically this one...with modern features of course:

Screen-shot-2012-07-29-at-L-16.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: cargoplex
Why there is no news about kernel changes in objective-c?

Code:
mach/machine.h
Removed #def CPUFAMILY_INTEL_6_14 <https://developer.apple.com/reference/kernel/cpufamily_intel_6_14>
Removed #def CPUFAMILY_INTEL_6_15 <https://developer.apple.com/reference/kernel/1444924>
Removed #def CPUFAMILY_INTEL_CORE <https://developer.apple.com/reference/kernel/cpufamily_intel_core>
Removed #def CPUFAMILY_INTEL_CORE2 <https://developer.apple.com/reference/kernel/cpufamily_intel_core2>
Removed #def CPUFAMILY_INTEL_MEROM <https://developer.apple.com/reference/kernel/1444833>
Removed #def CPUFAMILY_INTEL_YONAH <https://developer.apple.com/reference/kernel/1444859>
Added a #def CPUFAMILY_ARM_HURRICANE

The plot thickens.

Because those were discovered weeks ago. It's just Apple removing legacy support for older processors that aren't supported in Sierra going forward. The Objective-C language and Xcode are used for developing macOS apps and iOS apps. Hurricane is likely the codename for the A10 Fusion chip. They added support for it, which makes sense, because iPhone 7. Nothing to see here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ
Exactly my thought. which is why i doubt this rumor is true. I don't think Jony wants to relive Antenagate all over again.

I'm thinking like this (but hopefully even sexier, although this is pretty sexy):
phpypxsgx.jpg

No antenna issues with my Note5 at least (similar design).

I think the issue with the 4s was that the metal rim was the antenna.

But reception should be better through glass, no?

I always looooved the 4S design, so when Sony and later Samsung "copied" it (and added all the other features Apple didn't), I just couldn't resist.

Still, can't wait to see if that'll be the one to bring me back!!
 
They seem to have consumers trained to think Stainless Steel is as valuable as gold. I used to work at the place that brokered metals. Aluminum is maybe $$0.75 per pound and Stainless is about double that. But there would be nothing even close to a pound of metal in a phone, not even a 1/10 of a pound.. A tenth of a pound of stainless costs about 17 cents.
Not to argue with you (much) - steel, generically, is not anything like a precious metal. But, where gold and aluminum are themselves elements (though when used in things like watches and phones, both are in the form of alloys with other metals), there is no such thing as "steel atoms" - steel is made of iron and other elements, and some crazy amounts of effort, over the centuries, have gone into working out the very best steel alloys for various purposes. Some of the better steels can be quite expensive, and, perhaps more germane here, some varieties can be tremendously hard to machine (mill/lathe/grind into a specific shape). I know of people who do very precise CNC machining (similar to what Apple does though in other fields) on steel, titanium, tungsten and other metals, who have to figure the cost of tool bits that will wear out and/or break, into the cost of the finished part, and this per-unit machining overhead can be quite substantial. If you have a tool bit that costs $50 all by itself, used for just one of your machining steps, and you find you're wearing out one of these for every 6 parts you manufacture, it really adds up. (And aluminum is MUCH easier to machine than steel.)

Counting only the raw cost of "steel' (without any attention paid to alloy or grade) for phone or watch cases, is sort of in the same ballpark as the reports that come out every year citing how the "raw parts cost" of an iPhone is estimated to be $100 or $200 or whatever - it's interesting info in and of itself, but then entirely too many people extrapolate poorly from that into "Apple is ripping me off, the iPhone only cost them $100 and they're making $700 profit off of it". No, they aren't. Oh, don't worry, Apple is making plenty of money, but making an iPhone is far more costly than pouring $100 worth of raw parts into a cardboard box and sending it out the door.
[doublepost=1475170954][/doublepost]
Mythical liquid metal iPhone.
And every once in a while it morphs into a police officer and asks, "HAVE YOU SEEN THIS BOY?"
 
Glass is heavier and more brittle than aluminum. I can't see this being a good trade-off.

However, I have a feeling that Apple may be telegraphing their next material exploration with the white ceramic watch. Ceramic has the potential to be light and tough, with excellent RF performance… potentially no antenna bands?

I'd put my money on glossy black and white ceramic as two options for iPhone X.
 
that's simply not true. The iPhone SE carries similar features to the iPhone 5S (LCD, non 3d touch, etc). There are higher end devices to Apple. I know it is not Apple saying this, but acting as if Apple does not set the Plus apart (more features) is just ignoring reality.
Agreed. This year was the first year that it was crystal clear where all features were put, with an extra gig of ram and the dual camera in the plus. It's like they were bracing us for the future to let us know there absolutely will be tiers of the iPhone from now on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simonmet
"High end models" ...

STAHP APPLE STAHP. If the high end model is a 4.7" size I am fine with that but stop forcing me to the bigger model for better stuff. Please.

Don't see that happening, but doesn't hurt to make your voice heard.

The larger form factor has more space for advanced internals, and is more expensive to produce. Those facts alone push it into premium territory. A high end casing and better screen standard on an already more expensive device seems logical.

The most popular size is still 4.7", and needs to have a price sensitive member of the lineup. A high end 4.7" would be yet another model. A Pro line with both sizes is even less likely.

Hold onto hope that the larger device will be a friendlier size than its current incarnation.
 
They seem to have consumers trained to think Stainless Steel is as valuable as gold. I used to work at the place that brokered metals. Aluminum is maybe $$0.75 per pound and Stainless is about double that. But there would be nothing even close to a pound of metal in a phone, not even a 1/10 of a pound.. A tenth of a pound of stainless costs about 17 cents.

Yes I know machining the metal costs too, but that has to be done in either case.

The real difference is that people will pay more for a final product if made of stainless.
I was wondering what the cost difference (per phone) between the 2 materials would be. Based on your number, it would be less than 10¢.
 
Nope. Steel is heavy and corrodes (and I am not certain but may also be RF opaque). Glass is heavy and scratches/cracks. Ceramic casing makes far more sense at this point. I don't see why it should be hard to manufacture with molds and slight finishing. It is comparatively light, tough, does not corrode. There is a reason it is used in military grade tactical vests and the space shuttle.
 
I don’t understand why people have a problem with this. When I by a base model 316d I don't get an LSD like I do if I buy an M3. Is that not the same?

Some people like to think that they should be able to choose whichever size they want and not have smaller sizes subject to lesser quality or fewer features (and it doesn't seem to matter that it costs less too). No matter how ridiculous this is in the world of engineering.

They seem to have consumers trained to think Stainless Steel is as valuable as gold. I used to work at the place that brokered metals. Aluminum is maybe $$0.75 per pound and Stainless is about double that. But there would be nothing even close to a pound of metal in a phone, not even a 1/10 of a pound.. A tenth of a pound of stainless costs about 17 cents.

Yes I know machining the metal costs too, but that has to be done in either case.

The real difference is that people will pay more for a final product if made of stainless.

Not to nitpick, but you leave out the important detail that the unibody construction starts from a solid block of material, which is far more valuable than the casing it is machined down into being. And yes the waste material is recycled and reused, but there is still waste product.

Never the less, it is best to ignore predictions that Apple will differentiate the iPhone line with material, the way they do with Apple Watch, as there is little practical reason to do so.
 
Glass is heavier and more brittle than aluminum. I can't see this being a good trade-off.

However, I have a feeling that Apple may be telegraphing their next material exploration with the white ceramic watch. Ceramic has the potential to be light and tough, with excellent RF performance… potentially no antenna bands?
I'm not convinced that the antenna bands on the back of the iPhones 6/6+/6s/6s+/7/7+ aren't ceramic already. And "glass", like "steel", covers a wide range of materials, from "run of the mill" to quite exotic. I was always a fan of the iPhone 4 - yes, having glass on the back meant the back glass could break occasionally, though I suspect having materials with exactly the same response to shock and compression on both sides led to having fewer breakages of the front glass. In any case, my iPhone 4 (granted it hasn't seen much use in the last 4-1/2 years) still looks brand new.

For next year's iPhone, Gorilla Glass-type front and back surfaces with a ceramic frame could be pretty awesome. Or, yeah, all ceramic except for the front glass would be cool too, though probably quite a bit spendier.
 
There is a reason it is used in military grade tactical vests and the space shuttle.
Ceramic is used in tactical vests as a special purpose insert plate to stop armor piercing rounds. They'll take an immense impact once, needing to be replaced afterwards (if I understand correctly). Ceramic was used in tiles on the space shuttle's underside because it can withstand immense heat. Neither of these properties has much use in a phone. It is a terrific material, but it is not magical.

I agree that we're likely to see Apple use more ceramic, and I'm looking forward to that, but please see it as the interesting material that it is, with its own advantages and disadvantages, don't ascribe magical properties to it. There are uses for which steel, aluminum, or glass are much better. There is no one winner.
 
Kuo previously said Apple will launch a 5.8-inch iPhone with a curved OLED display and glass casing next year, which a subsequent report said will be a high-end model. The other models would retain LCD displays with 4.7-inch and 5.5-inch screen sizes

If true, I'll be right ticked. It's one thing to produce camera options for the phablet, quite another to develop an entirely different model only available in that size.

For a company that seems to believe the "prosumer"/professional market is "niche" (which is completely false yet that's another topic), Apple seems to love producing "niche" models for a premium price while claiming it's due to supply constraints. Apple better be prepared for angry mobs and massive drops in iPhone sales next year assuming this is true.
 
Don't really care since i use a case. But hopefully it too is in short supply so I can make another 2k next year.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.